This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests or in the interests of your external relationships.

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers.[1] When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

COI editing is strongly discouraged. It risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and groups being promoted (see Wikipedia is in the real world), and if it causes disruption to the encyclopedia, accounts may be blocked. "[M]isrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" is a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use.[2]

Paid advocacy is a category of COI editing that involves receiving financial compensation from a person or organization to use Wikipedia to promote the interests of that person or organization. Advocacy of any sort within articles is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and paid advocacy is regarded as an especially egregious form of advocacy. The Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a black hat practice.[3] Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question. Wikimedia's Terms of Use state that "you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation."

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

a statement on your user page,

a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or

a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.
A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page. For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions.

We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vanity press, or forum for advertising or self-promotion. As such it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Adding material that appears to advance the interests or promote the visibility of an article's author, the author's family, employer, clients, associates or business, places the author in a conflict of interest.

COI editing is strongly discouraged. COI editors causing disruption may be blocked. Editors with COIs who wish to edit responsibly are strongly encouraged to follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously. They are also encouraged to disclose their interest on their user pages and on the talk page of the article in question, and to request the views of other editors. If you have a conflict of interest, any changes you would like to propose that might be seen as non-neutral should be suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard.

Paid advocacy is a subset of COI editing (see WP:PAY below). Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question, or on a noticeboard such as WP:COIN. These changes may or may not be acted upon. Paid advocates are also advised to disclose their conflict of interest, as required by the Terms of Use.

Note that you do not control articles and others may delete them, keep them, or add information that would have remained little-known. While Wikipedians generally avoid naming editors and their paymasters, other media routinely do. This has led at times to embarrassment for the organization concerned.

While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to be a Wikipedian. Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role, and when it does undermine it, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest. A judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator would be undermined by her secondary role as the defendant's wife. A journalist's primary role as an unbiased investigator would be undermined by his secondary role as business partner of the subject of his investigation.

A conflict of interest is a situation in which some person P (whether an individual or corporate body) stands in a certain relation to one or more decisions. On the standard view, P has a conflict of interest if, and only if, (1) P is in a relationship with another requiring P to exercise judgment in the other's behalf and (2) P has a (special) interest tending to interfere with the proper exercise of judgment in that relationship.[4]

Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.

An apparent conflict of interest arises when P does not have a conflict of interest, but someone would be justified in thinking P does. Michael Davis writes that apparent conflicts can be as objectionable as potential or actual conflicts, because they cause suspicion, and should therefore be resolved wherever possible.[5]

A potential conflict of interest occurs when P has a conflict with respect to a certain judgment, but is not yet in a position where that judgment must be exercised.[6]

A potential conflict becomes an actual conflict of interest when P is in a position to exercise that judgment.[6]

A Wikipedian who owns a notable business would have a potential conflict of interest with respect to the exercise of judgment about that business's article. She would have an actual conflict if placed in a position where the judgment needed to be exercised (for example, by creating or editing the article, or commenting in a deletion debate about it). Another Wikipedian would have an apparent conflict if there were grounds to believe that she was the business owner when she was not.

Conflict of interest is not simply bias.[7] Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest. On Wikipedia, a person's beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but biased editing can occur in the absence of a conflict of interest.

Davis writes that, according to the standard view, conflict of interest is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge". He identifies three problems with it. First, a person P with a conflict of interest may fail to exercise good judgment; he writes that people with a conflict often "esteem too highly their own reliability", and fail to realize the extent to which the conflict has affected their judgment. Second, if the people relying on P do not know that she has a conflict of interest, P is betraying their trust by allowing them to believe that her judgment is more reliable than it is. Third, even if P does inform those who rely on her that she has a conflict of interest, thereby removing the moral problem, the technical problem will remain, namely that P will be less competent than she would otherwise be, and in addition may bring the reputation of others, including her profession, into disrepute.[8]

Davis suggests that there are three ways in which a person with a conflict of interest might approach it:

it can be escaped by recusal, whereby P removes herself from one of the competing relationships;

it can be disclosed to anyone who relies on P's judgment, so that they can decide whether to remove P, or seek a second opinion wherever P has exercised her judgment; and

it can be managed, with or without disclosure – for example, P might ask people to watch closely when she does anything where her judgment could be affected by the conflict.[9]

Whether to recuse, disclose or manage depends on the alternative courses of action available, how serious the conflict is, the privacy implications of disclosure, and what the consequences would be of exercising compromised judgment.[9]

See Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, described above. What follows is subject to the Terms of Use and if there appear to be any contradictions, the Terms of Use overrule this guideline.

Paid editing is the practice of accepting money to edit Wikipedia. Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our policy on neutrality.[10] Advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing are prohibited by our policy WP:NOT.

Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour, or who submit "billable hours" to justify their salaries, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. No editor should be subjected to long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with them. Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus against his or her position by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:WikiBullying, WP:Own or WP:Civility.

The act of accepting money or rewards for editing Wikipedia is not always problematic. There may be benign examples of editors being paid; for instance, Wikipedians collaborating with mission-aligned organizations such as galleries, libraries, archives and museums. Another benign example is the reward board, a place where editors can post financial and other incentives: it is a transparent process, the goal of which is usually to raise articles to featured- or good-article status (but be wary of editors asking you to make edits that challenge your sense of neutrality). If you intend to participate in this kind of paid editing, transparency and neutrality are key. Editing in a way that biases the coverage of Wikipedia or that violates our core policies is not acceptable.

Paid advocacy – that is, being paid to promote something or someone on Wikipedia – is a subset of paid editing. Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, wrote in October 2013 that the Foundation regards paid advocacy as a "black hat" practice that "violates the core principles that have made Wikipedia so valuable for so many people."[3]

If the following applies to you:

you are receiving, or expect to receive, monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (as an employee or contractor; as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public-relations purposes; as owner, officer or other stakeholder; or by having some other form of close financial relationship with a topic you wish to write about),

then you are very strongly discouraged from directly editing Wikipedia in areas where those external relationships could reasonably be said to undermine your ability to remain neutral. If you have a financial connection to a topic – including, but not limited to, as an owner, employee, contractor or other stakeholder – you are advised to refrain from editing affected articles directly.

You may use the article talk pages (visit the article in question—then click the 'talk' button at the top of the page) to suggest changes, or the {{request edit}} template to request edits (see WP:TEAHOUSE if you have questions about these things). You should provide full disclosure of your connection, when using talkpages, making edit requests, and similar. Requested edits are subject to the same editorial standards as any other edit, and other editors may decline to act on them.

In May 2012 the Munich Oberlandesgericht court ruled that if a company or its agents edit Wikipedia with the aim of influencing customers, the edits constitute covert advertising, and as such are a violation of European fair trading law (see the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive). The ruling stated that readers cannot be expected to seek out user and talk pages to find editors' disclosures about their corporate affiliation. The case arose out of a claim against a company by a competitor over edits made to the article Weihrauchpräparat on the German Wikipedia. The judgment can be read here.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) in the UK reached a similar decision in June 2012 in relation to material about Nike on Twitter. The ASA found that the content of certain tweets from two footballers had been "agreed with the help of a member of the Nike marketing team." The tweets were not clearly identified as Nike marketing communications, and were therefore in breach of the ASA's code.[11]

Unless specified otherwise, content created for an employer is typically considered work-for-hire and the copyright is assigned to that employer. Editors in the employ of a third party are reminded that any material they contribute to Wikipedia in this capacity becomes irrevocably licensed under the terms of a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license and the GNU Free Documentation License, and are encouraged to make sure their employers are fully aware of this. Any contribution, including talk-page comments, can be freely copied, modified, deleted, reproduced, altered and quoted by third parties for both commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that the contribution be attributed to Wikipedia.

Editors should not edit articles in which they have a political conflict of interest. Examples:

Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, or political party, or articles about their political opponents, opposition groups, or controversial political topics, with the intent to slant or spin an article in a manner that is politically advantageous to their employer.

Political candidates or their staff should not edit articles about their electoral opponents.

Reliably-sourced, notable material written in a neutral point of view should not be deleted from articles with the intent of protecting the political interests of a party, agency, or government.

Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with campaigns that engage in advocacy in the same area, you may have a conflict of interest.

You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends. If you or they are notable enough, someone else will create the article. You should also avoid writing about yourself or people you know in articles on other topics. This includes people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly, from adding related advertising links, links to personal websites and similar, and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions.

An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, follow it up with an email to WP:OTRS, Wikipedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons.

Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.

to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.[12]

WiRs serve as a liaison between the Wikipedia community and members of the mission-aligned organization. They must not engage in public relations or marketing for that organization and they must operate within the bounds defined by "the core characteristics of a Wikipedian in Residence" at Outreach. They must work closely with a Wikipedia project or the general Wikipedia community. Whether or not they are paid by the organization, they must identify their WiR status on their user page and on talk pages related to their organization when they edit them. We encourage WIRs and the members of their organizations to participate in building Wikipedia.

If you write about yourself, your group or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, or to delete it outside the normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want to have included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually.

Those with a potential conflict of interest are encouraged to upload good-quality digital media files that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia and that improve our coverage of a subject. For more information, follow the instructions at Commons. In some cases, the addition of digital media files to an article may be a non-controversial edit that editors with a conflict of interest can make directly; however editors should exercise discretion and rely on Talk pages when images may be controversial or promotional. If the addition of an image is challenged by another editor, it was not uncontroversial.

Some editors declare an interest in a particular topic area. The benefits of this are that most editors will appreciate your honesty and may try to help you; you lay the basis for requesting help from others to post material for you, or to review material you wish to post yourself, and public relations professionals may be required to abide by code of ethics, such as the GA code of ethics or PRSA code of ethics. The disadvantage of declaring your interest is that people outside Wikipedia, such as reporters, may identify you and generate negative publicity for you, your group or your company. Some COI declarations have the effect of announcing your real name (see WP:REALNAME). Do not publicly declare an interest if this could put you at harm in the real world, e.g., from stalkers.

If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI as defined in this guideline or has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use, raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page, citing this guideline. If the editor does not change his or her behavior to comply with this guideline and/or the Terms of use, create a posting on WP:COIN, following the instructions there. Relevant article talk pages may be tagged with {{Connected contributor}}, and the article itself may be tagged with {{COI}}. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content.

If an editor edits in a way that leads you to believe that he or she might have a conflict of interest or might have made one or more paid contributions, remember to assume good faith. Consider whether the editor's use of sources complies with WP:RS and sourcing guidelines, and whether the issue may be advocacy. The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN. The appropriate forum for concerns about advocacy is WP:NPOVN. If there are concerns about sock- or meatpuppets, please bring that concern to WP:SPI.

During discussions on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments are sometimes made about the subject of the article, its author, or the author's motives. Such comments should be avoided, since they may be seen as forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions. Remember not to bite the newcomers.

Accounts that appear to be single-purpose accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion or denigration of a person, company, product, service, website, organization, etc., and whose postings are in apparent violation of this guideline, should be made aware of this guideline and warned not to continue their problematic posting. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

These items and the discussions surrounding them may show how Wikipedia consensus has changed over time. They may also include "good ideas" for editing behavior that go "above and beyond" official policies.